Suppr超能文献

医学专家进行的主动脉瘤修复风险评估与美国外科医师学会国家外科质量改进计划风险计算器的结果比较。

Risk assessment in aortic aneurysm repair by medical specialists versus the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program risk calculator outcomes.

作者信息

van Schaik Jan, Hers Tessa M, van Rijswijk Carla Sp, Schooneveldt Maaike S, Putter Hein, Eefting Daniël, van der Vorst Joost R

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.

出版信息

JRSM Cardiovasc Dis. 2021 Apr 8;10:20480040211006582. doi: 10.1177/20480040211006582. eCollection 2021 Jan-Dec.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this online clinical vignette-based survey study was to compare risk assessments by vascular surgeons, anaesthesiologists and interventional radiologists involved in treating patients with aortic aneurysms in the Netherlands with the NSQIP risk calculator outcomes.

METHODS

Participants, recruited using purposive sampling, provided their estimation of the likelihood of postoperative complications and events following aortic surgery in five fictional cases. These cases were subsequently scored using the NSQIP calculator. The risk assessments were statistically analysed using the ANOVA and student t-test.

RESULTS

All participating specialists i.e. twelve vascular surgeons, ten interventional radiologists and ten anaesthesiologists completed the survey. In the vast majority of outcomes and vignettes, no significant differences were found between various specialists, whereas significant differences were found between the NSQIP risk calculator outcomes and the combined risk assessments of the specialists. Overall, specialist risk assessments differ from the NSQIP, but neither particularly higher nor lower compared to the risk calculator.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk assessment by vascular surgeons, anaesthesiologists and interventional radiologists differs significantly with NSQIP risk calculator outcomes, within the framework of both endovascular and open aortic aneurysm repair. Based on these results, implementing the NSQIP risk calculator in preoperative workup could be of added value in both patient planning as well as adequately informing patients for obtaining consent.

摘要

目的

这项基于在线临床病例的调查研究旨在比较荷兰参与治疗主动脉瘤患者的血管外科医生、麻醉医生和介入放射科医生的风险评估与NSQIP风险计算器的结果。

方法

采用目的抽样法招募参与者,他们对五个虚构病例中主动脉手术后并发症和事件的发生可能性进行估计。随后使用NSQIP计算器对这些病例进行评分。使用方差分析和学生t检验对风险评估进行统计分析。

结果

所有参与的专家,即12名血管外科医生、10名介入放射科医生和10名麻醉医生完成了调查。在绝大多数结果和病例中,不同专家之间未发现显著差异,而NSQIP风险计算器的结果与专家的综合风险评估之间存在显著差异。总体而言,专家的风险评估与NSQIP不同,但与风险计算器相比既没有特别高也没有特别低。

结论

在血管内和开放性主动脉瘤修复的框架内,血管外科医生、麻醉医生和介入放射科医生的风险评估与NSQIP风险计算器的结果存在显著差异。基于这些结果,在术前检查中应用NSQIP风险计算器在患者规划以及充分告知患者以获得同意方面可能具有附加价值。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验